Well let's see, the first column of the first page contains the words "engineer," "laws of physics," "tests," and "rules of psychoacoustics," all buzzwords intended to invoke mental images of men in white coats with clipboards. The irony of this is that you (and others who proclaim to be the sole owners of the word "science") don't apply the same skepticism to writeups like this that you do to the observations that you call voodoo. Personally, I'd think that someone billed as Vice President Acoustical Engineering, Harman International Industries might...just might...have a vested interest in the outcome of these tests. Especially when the first column of the first page concludes with the words "cost effective products." Now, I don't know about you, but when I see a Vice President of a large company talking about 'cost effective products,' I start thinking he means profit margins--not science. But that's just me being silly.
Well, let's see about this listening panel...hmmm, says here (page 9) that the listeners gained their experience during the testing. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound too promising. "Some were musicians..." I think we've already dealt with that so I won't comment further. "Others had professional audio experience..." No specifics as to exactly what audio experience. Are they, perhaps, reviewers or long term salesmen...or just guys pulled off the assembly line where they solder resistors into circuit boards. 'Audio experience' doesn't really say much, does it? Ah...here we go..."most were simply audio enthusiasts." Note the derogatory 'simply' the author managed to slide in there. And at the end of the list, no less--another dead giveaway. You generally see the least of a category presented last in a list. Do you see the slant yet? No? Very well, let's continue.
Let's devote a moment to this term "audio enthusiast." I daresay that nearly every member of this site would describe themselves as an audio enthusiast. Surely you would agree, yes? But does that mean the same thing in every case? Is a boom-boom car stereo guy the same as one who listens to chamber music on mini-monitors? Is a tube maven the same as a specs-are-everything solid state guy? I don't think so. Yet, they are all to some greater or less degree enthusiasts, are they not?
Would you trust the ears of a boom-boom car stereo fellow who listens at 110dB all day, every day?
Look at the posters in this thread. It's patently obvious that there are several who are very much swayed by brand names, reputations, and appearances. Probably ought to add price tags, while I'm at it. Oh, and throw in whatever the latest high-tech NEW-AND-IMPROVED thing is (e.g. class D for the purposes of this thread). Would you want them on that listening panel? I wouldn't...unless I wanted to skew the results.
And therein lies the rub.
It's no trouble at all to pull together an inexperienced and/or biased listening panel, yet cloak it in terms that sound reassuring and scientific.
In short, I will repeat what I said above. I challenge you and your like-minded compatriots to apply the same gimlet-eyed skepticism to your own supporting literature that you do to claims that you disapprove of. I think you'll find that a lot of what you take for "science" is anything but.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ebay to buy an old MC2205 and a JC-2 to drive it. Sonics be damned.
Grey
Well, let's see about this listening panel...hmmm, says here (page 9) that the listeners gained their experience during the testing. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound too promising. "Some were musicians..." I think we've already dealt with that so I won't comment further. "Others had professional audio experience..." No specifics as to exactly what audio experience. Are they, perhaps, reviewers or long term salesmen...or just guys pulled off the assembly line where they solder resistors into circuit boards. 'Audio experience' doesn't really say much, does it? Ah...here we go..."most were simply audio enthusiasts." Note the derogatory 'simply' the author managed to slide in there. And at the end of the list, no less--another dead giveaway. You generally see the least of a category presented last in a list. Do you see the slant yet? No? Very well, let's continue.
Let's devote a moment to this term "audio enthusiast." I daresay that nearly every member of this site would describe themselves as an audio enthusiast. Surely you would agree, yes? But does that mean the same thing in every case? Is a boom-boom car stereo guy the same as one who listens to chamber music on mini-monitors? Is a tube maven the same as a specs-are-everything solid state guy? I don't think so. Yet, they are all to some greater or less degree enthusiasts, are they not?
Would you trust the ears of a boom-boom car stereo fellow who listens at 110dB all day, every day?
Look at the posters in this thread. It's patently obvious that there are several who are very much swayed by brand names, reputations, and appearances. Probably ought to add price tags, while I'm at it. Oh, and throw in whatever the latest high-tech NEW-AND-IMPROVED thing is (e.g. class D for the purposes of this thread). Would you want them on that listening panel? I wouldn't...unless I wanted to skew the results.
And therein lies the rub.
It's no trouble at all to pull together an inexperienced and/or biased listening panel, yet cloak it in terms that sound reassuring and scientific.
In short, I will repeat what I said above. I challenge you and your like-minded compatriots to apply the same gimlet-eyed skepticism to your own supporting literature that you do to claims that you disapprove of. I think you'll find that a lot of what you take for "science" is anything but.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ebay to buy an old MC2205 and a JC-2 to drive it. Sonics be damned.
Grey
GRollins said:
This may be something of an academic debate, but this is really a complaint against the way particular tests are run rather than against the basic premise of ABX itself. However, it does highlight the problem that 'proper' tests are probably so difficult to administer that the whole idea is of limited value.
In my understanding of what ABX is attempting to establish - the existence of repeatably verifiable audible differences - the test regimen has to satisfy a couple basic preconditions.
1) The listener must be intimately familiar with both A and B. As has been touched on in recent posts, testing listeners that have not trained themselves to hear a particular phenemenon is futile. In practice, this should mean that the listener has arbitrary time to listen to both A and B *in the test system* before the test.
2) The listener has to believe there is a difference to be heard.
It's pretty easy to see that most tests fail point 1 badly, and that providing for this for even a couple listeners is highly impractical in the type of component tests we seem to be talking about. Satisfying this for a statistically significant sample population is virtually impossible.
ABX can work very well when trying to test for very specific audibility criteria, particularly if you can isolate/encode them down to a set of WAV files. As much as audiophiles love to dump on the perceptual coding guys, they've gotten some pretty remarkable work done largely via easy/automated ABX setups.
My experience and understanding agree with this, and IMHO this is where the 'audiophile' community goes astray. It seems that most audiophiles want to believe that everyone EXCEPT THEM is prone to this effect. They seem to consider it a criticism or affront which is isn't - we're just human.
There certainly is no need to attempt to eliminate this effect if we're only concerned about our own enjoyment and experience. However, very few listeners seem to be content to leave it at this. As soon as you try to generalize your individual experience to others or to some 'objective' reality, it begins to matter quite a bit.
syn08 said:
Nahhhhhh, everyone here (or is it hear) most certainly views the industry purely objectively.
Certainly one would not let one's livelihood effect their discourse written or otherwise on such topics. What threat could a stupid dirty sand IC have to a serious designer... Hmm obviously some methinks... Or nothing need be said.
I must admit, I find it all amusing. Lots of finger wagging, and pointing.
There have been some most interesting bits though. So thanks all the same. But I think those who think they have the corner on the high ground, best look again at where they are standing.
Cheers!
Russ
syn08,
And that vested interest is...?
I'm no longer in the audio business--haven't been for over twenty years. There's no way I can profit from any of this. I don't see any way that I might gain in a non-financial way, either. The claim that people who listen have some sort of interest in perpetuating an arbitrary set of "myths" is always justified with arbitrary hand-waving that, well, you know, the guys who make product X have a profit motive. Well, I suppose so, but then they're on the same footing as a VP from Harman, are they not? At least that's a level playing field.
The thing is that I'm not employed by anyone who manufactures audio products, I don't review audio products. I don't sell audio products. So once again a seemingly cutting comment turns out to have a pretty dull edge. Indeed, I fear the blade has broken entirely.
The claim that people who hear things are "deluded" or "crazy" rather leaves out the vested interest part yet again. No one has ever quite managed to explain how being deluded or crazy is of benefit to the person in question. Unless you wish to insist that they are determined to be happy. If this be madness, let us all suffer from it!
In passing, I'll note that it seems to give specs-are-all critters a great deal of happiness to read meters. This is no different in substance from people who get their jollies in other ways. I fished when I was younger, but no longer derive much pleasure from it. That doesn't mean that others can't find a great deal of satisfaction in doing so. Does that make them crazy?
If you look back through my posts here over the years, you will find a consistent pattern. I never comment on things I haven't heard. The closest I will come is to note that I don't necessarily see how a product could work (e.g. magic dots), but that's not the same as insisting foolishly that they can't work. I simply note that I don't see a mechanism whereby they can bring about the claimed result. If I get a chance to listen to them, I will do so. I've heard "impossible" things that made a difference (in spite of a strong negative prejudice on my part, e.g. cable direction) and things that "should have" made a difference but I did not hear the claimed effect (e.g. the VPI Magic Bricks of yore...the premise sounded plausible, but I didn't hear anything).
In short, another statement that doesn't fly. This is getting tiresome. People keep trotting out the same tired cliches without thought, without reason, and without having tried it themselves. Educate your ears. Listen. You are then left with a limited number of responses:
--I have not tried it. I have no opinion.
--I have heard it. I did not heard any benefit. (Note that this does not mean that others cannot hear something--it means precisely and only what it says: One individual did not hear an effect.)
--I have heard it. I did hear a benefit. (Note that this does not mean that everyone will hear something. They may not be listening for the right things or their hearing may not be sufficiently acute or whatever.)
Any other response is intellectually dishonest and deserves to be treated with contempt.
If you hear a benefit you can move on to "Is the benefit worth the asking price?" which is a separate question from the "Do I hear anything?" question, in spite of attempts by foolish people to make it one and the same thing. The answer may well be that you hear a difference, but are not prepared to pay as much as a car for it. That's not a problem. But it also doesn't mean that the benefit suddenly goes away either, just because you can't (or choose not to) afford it.
That's so simple that it seems to plumb elude people. However, I like to think of it as a litmus test for personality. Those with narrow, closed minds consistently identify themselves as such. Saves me a lot of time and trouble deciding who I would invite to my desert island if the world should come to an end.
Grey
And that vested interest is...?
I'm no longer in the audio business--haven't been for over twenty years. There's no way I can profit from any of this. I don't see any way that I might gain in a non-financial way, either. The claim that people who listen have some sort of interest in perpetuating an arbitrary set of "myths" is always justified with arbitrary hand-waving that, well, you know, the guys who make product X have a profit motive. Well, I suppose so, but then they're on the same footing as a VP from Harman, are they not? At least that's a level playing field.
The thing is that I'm not employed by anyone who manufactures audio products, I don't review audio products. I don't sell audio products. So once again a seemingly cutting comment turns out to have a pretty dull edge. Indeed, I fear the blade has broken entirely.
The claim that people who hear things are "deluded" or "crazy" rather leaves out the vested interest part yet again. No one has ever quite managed to explain how being deluded or crazy is of benefit to the person in question. Unless you wish to insist that they are determined to be happy. If this be madness, let us all suffer from it!
In passing, I'll note that it seems to give specs-are-all critters a great deal of happiness to read meters. This is no different in substance from people who get their jollies in other ways. I fished when I was younger, but no longer derive much pleasure from it. That doesn't mean that others can't find a great deal of satisfaction in doing so. Does that make them crazy?
If you look back through my posts here over the years, you will find a consistent pattern. I never comment on things I haven't heard. The closest I will come is to note that I don't necessarily see how a product could work (e.g. magic dots), but that's not the same as insisting foolishly that they can't work. I simply note that I don't see a mechanism whereby they can bring about the claimed result. If I get a chance to listen to them, I will do so. I've heard "impossible" things that made a difference (in spite of a strong negative prejudice on my part, e.g. cable direction) and things that "should have" made a difference but I did not hear the claimed effect (e.g. the VPI Magic Bricks of yore...the premise sounded plausible, but I didn't hear anything).
In short, another statement that doesn't fly. This is getting tiresome. People keep trotting out the same tired cliches without thought, without reason, and without having tried it themselves. Educate your ears. Listen. You are then left with a limited number of responses:
--I have not tried it. I have no opinion.
--I have heard it. I did not heard any benefit. (Note that this does not mean that others cannot hear something--it means precisely and only what it says: One individual did not hear an effect.)
--I have heard it. I did hear a benefit. (Note that this does not mean that everyone will hear something. They may not be listening for the right things or their hearing may not be sufficiently acute or whatever.)
Any other response is intellectually dishonest and deserves to be treated with contempt.
If you hear a benefit you can move on to "Is the benefit worth the asking price?" which is a separate question from the "Do I hear anything?" question, in spite of attempts by foolish people to make it one and the same thing. The answer may well be that you hear a difference, but are not prepared to pay as much as a car for it. That's not a problem. But it also doesn't mean that the benefit suddenly goes away either, just because you can't (or choose not to) afford it.
That's so simple that it seems to plumb elude people. However, I like to think of it as a litmus test for personality. Those with narrow, closed minds consistently identify themselves as such. Saves me a lot of time and trouble deciding who I would invite to my desert island if the world should come to an end.
Grey
Considering each team member’s prior pedigree I’m less inclined to see conspiracy in the Harman R&D group’s motives and consider the intentions genuine. Open to serious criticism for sure but still genuine. If I read past papers correctly my main objection is they test for user preference rather than reproductive accuracy. Speakers aren’t judged against an original acoustic source, only other speakers. Granting that as research division of a manufacturing entity it’s exactly what they should be doing it shifts the results from science to marketing, discovering not what sounds most like the real thing but what people like to hear. The latter is arguably a complex mix of freedom from gross inaccuracies and reinforcement of a prior ‘good’ standard. Anyone who has seen the ubiquitous ‘smiley face’ on a graphic equalizer instinctively knows the value of the latter.
Regarding the specific blind test in question, without reading the details it’s hard to say anything about validity. The narrow variance in the blind tests is interesting. Strict measurement proponents should interpret it cautiously. If a class of devices with as wide a measurable objective variance as speakers groups that tightly (large floor standards to. a budget sat/sub combo in this instance) it might say more than is comfortable for example about the latest wiz-bang solid state amplification versus the original ‘50s Williamsons. Strict application of logic might leave little room other than to say the last 50 years of audio advancement in amplifiers has been in manufacturing efficiencies, reduced power consumption, lower shipping costs and nicer faceplates than in reproductive accuracy.
Regarding the specific blind test in question, without reading the details it’s hard to say anything about validity. The narrow variance in the blind tests is interesting. Strict measurement proponents should interpret it cautiously. If a class of devices with as wide a measurable objective variance as speakers groups that tightly (large floor standards to. a budget sat/sub combo in this instance) it might say more than is comfortable for example about the latest wiz-bang solid state amplification versus the original ‘50s Williamsons. Strict application of logic might leave little room other than to say the last 50 years of audio advancement in amplifiers has been in manufacturing efficiencies, reduced power consumption, lower shipping costs and nicer faceplates than in reproductive accuracy.
The fact that people are passionate about things shows that they have an "interest" in it. Even if that interest is not financial, it can still be very much in play.
I think there are valid points made by many on this thread, I also think there are some things that have been said that make me wonder if "interest" has sometimes taken precedent over "logic". Logic though, may not be as important as I think. Who knows.
HiFi audio is not a purely logical, nor are some things easily quantified or analyzed. So to each their own. And I will try to keep an open (but not too open) mind.
Its all good fun. At least to me.
Cheers!
Russ
I think there are valid points made by many on this thread, I also think there are some things that have been said that make me wonder if "interest" has sometimes taken precedent over "logic". Logic though, may not be as important as I think. Who knows.
HiFi audio is not a purely logical, nor are some things easily quantified or analyzed. So to each their own. And I will try to keep an open (but not too open) mind.
Its all good fun. At least to me.
Cheers!
Russ
dwk123 said:
The premise of ABX is that everything sounds the same, so that is all it could prove. The forced choice affects the beta such that it actually can't do anything useful.
Don't ask me to repeat the proof. I've seen it twice, and know enuff about statistics to know the proof was valid, but can't remember enuff to reconstruct it.
ABX is psudeo-science at its best, and besides the death blow above has all sorts of other weaknesses (like how much does the switch-box itself obsure?)
dave
The nature of the media we are using allows us to stay anonymous. Obviously there's no way to know what the discussion partner is doing for a living, unless they choose to disclose as such. But then at the end of the day it's all about credibility, and it's exactly statements as the quote above that doesn't help you get some. Not that "technical" arguments like "dirty sand IC's" would help either...
You may want to accept that others do have thoughts, they reason well and are educated to levels that you may currently have access (or lack thereof) as much as they have to your ears and brain. And ultimately, as a result, they may have a different set of criteria and values which may or may not overlap with yours.
I find it fascinating that people have responded so emotionally to the phrase "dirty sand." It's not as though there has been a strong tube presence in this thread; it's nearly all been about solid state, hence the phrase applies equally to all. The phrase itself is actually a very apt analogy. The fact that it has been taken so badly by so many reflects poorly on their technical knowledge and/or their emotional state.
That the phrase evokes emotion instead of reason falls precisely in line with what I was saying earlier. Given that the ones who are acting as though they'd been stuck with a pin are arguing that Charles (as a proxy for people who listen) is off base because he listens, they claim all sorts of things like a letter to the editor is marketing (I guess letters from those not in a manufacturing capacity are sending in anti-marketing letters? The soi disant logic here escapes me). The whole thing is just an excuse to attack Charles.
1) Have you heard his amps?
Yes or no.
2) Did they sound better than competing product from manufacturer X?
Yes or no.
It's that simple. Period.
syn08, your apparent assumption that I am currently in the audio industry is part of what's against you. In your rush to judgment, also evident in the content of your post, you damage your own credibility. Then you ask me to accept that you have thoughts, are able to reason, and are well educated.
Hmmm...
The evidence so far does not support that contention. However, it's possible you could demonstrate that you actually have an open mind and are willing to do more than offer empty catch phrases and poorly reasoned posts.
I'm waiting.
An intellectually honest person has only the options outlined above.
An intellectually dishonest person has many more options, but that doesn't mean they are good ones.
Grey
P.S.: As I've noted a number of times in the past, I work for the University of South Carolina. I drive the mainframe computers; supervisor on second shift. If anyone here should be pro-digital, it should be me...
Unless I listen, of course, which changes everything. But that's deemed unacceptable by some, it seems.
That the phrase evokes emotion instead of reason falls precisely in line with what I was saying earlier. Given that the ones who are acting as though they'd been stuck with a pin are arguing that Charles (as a proxy for people who listen) is off base because he listens, they claim all sorts of things like a letter to the editor is marketing (I guess letters from those not in a manufacturing capacity are sending in anti-marketing letters? The soi disant logic here escapes me). The whole thing is just an excuse to attack Charles.
1) Have you heard his amps?
Yes or no.
2) Did they sound better than competing product from manufacturer X?
Yes or no.
It's that simple. Period.
syn08, your apparent assumption that I am currently in the audio industry is part of what's against you. In your rush to judgment, also evident in the content of your post, you damage your own credibility. Then you ask me to accept that you have thoughts, are able to reason, and are well educated.
Hmmm...
The evidence so far does not support that contention. However, it's possible you could demonstrate that you actually have an open mind and are willing to do more than offer empty catch phrases and poorly reasoned posts.
I'm waiting.
An intellectually honest person has only the options outlined above.
An intellectually dishonest person has many more options, but that doesn't mean they are good ones.
Grey
P.S.: As I've noted a number of times in the past, I work for the University of South Carolina. I drive the mainframe computers; supervisor on second shift. If anyone here should be pro-digital, it should be me...
Unless I listen, of course, which changes everything. But that's deemed unacceptable by some, it seems.
GRollins said:
Well, Grey, of course you can criticise a lot about Floyd Tools piece, and a lot of that criticism might even hold true. But for me it is a LOT more convincing and credible than a lone poster here saying that he knows what's the score because he has listened to music many years and therefore knows. I have to make a choice between all the myriad different views here, and someone who at the very least does a trying job to document what he does, outcomes not only but also who did it, when, how, background, what have you. My choice is clear, YMMV.
Jan Didden
I had an interesting analogy for ABX testing....
Take two cards of coloured paper that are almost the same shade.
If you show someone one card then hide it, then show them the other and repeat it is almost assured they will not be able to tell the difference between them..
Hold both cards near or beside each other and it will immediately show there is a quite obvious difference between the two colours.
Now in an ABX colour test you could not tell there was any difference but it is quick and easy to demonstrate there is a difference and nobody would argue they are the same.
.................................................
Re musicians, I am a musician and we are not all cloth eared, I always feel robbed when I can't have my sound reproduction portray every little change in tone and sound of an instrument. The best players can manipulate the sound in such subtle ways I feel it is a travesty to loose all these minute details that makes the player what they are.
.................................................
Not quite the same as the discrete discussions earlier but IMHO the Pink Triangle Da-Capo is one of the best DAC's ever made.
This bit of equipment is quite unusual compared to most bits of digital equipment produced by hi-fi companies. It's dac is actually a discrete circuit rather than an off the shelf chip.
I am sure there are lots of other reasons for it's excellent and non-typical sound (the PMD100 filter in the HDCD is one but it sounds special with all the filter modules so it's not the main reason for the non-typical sound). So the only thing I can see that is totally diffrent from nearly all other high end designs is the discrete DAC.
...............................................
I'll not join in again as I don't know enough about these subjects but thought the above comments were interesting enough to add to the discussion.
Cheers
John
Take two cards of coloured paper that are almost the same shade.
If you show someone one card then hide it, then show them the other and repeat it is almost assured they will not be able to tell the difference between them..
Hold both cards near or beside each other and it will immediately show there is a quite obvious difference between the two colours.
Now in an ABX colour test you could not tell there was any difference but it is quick and easy to demonstrate there is a difference and nobody would argue they are the same.
.................................................
Re musicians, I am a musician and we are not all cloth eared, I always feel robbed when I can't have my sound reproduction portray every little change in tone and sound of an instrument. The best players can manipulate the sound in such subtle ways I feel it is a travesty to loose all these minute details that makes the player what they are.
.................................................
Not quite the same as the discrete discussions earlier but IMHO the Pink Triangle Da-Capo is one of the best DAC's ever made.
This bit of equipment is quite unusual compared to most bits of digital equipment produced by hi-fi companies. It's dac is actually a discrete circuit rather than an off the shelf chip.
I am sure there are lots of other reasons for it's excellent and non-typical sound (the PMD100 filter in the HDCD is one but it sounds special with all the filter modules so it's not the main reason for the non-typical sound). So the only thing I can see that is totally diffrent from nearly all other high end designs is the discrete DAC.
...............................................
I'll not join in again as I don't know enough about these subjects but thought the above comments were interesting enough to add to the discussion.
Cheers
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.